Sunday Business Post / Red C - Post Lisbon II Opinion Poll

Martin 2

Today's Sunday Business Post has published the results of a poll* on why people voted as they did on Lisbon. The article compares the results with a similar poll after the 2008 referendum. There doesn't seem to be an online version yet so here are some results from the paper version.


30% of the sample reported voting Yes on both occasions, 16% voted No on both occasions, 17% didn't vote in either referendum. Of the conversions less than 1% moved from Yes to No but 13% moved from No to Yes. The abstainers from 2008 who voted in 2009 supported the treaty by a ratio of 3 to 1.

When asked to choose between statements that "Ireland should do all it can to unite fully with the European Union", or "Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the European Union", in 2009 they found that more that 60% favoured more integration, hardly different from 2008. However in 2008 only 67% of those who favoured more integration voted Yes, while that percentage was 92% in 2009. The Yes vote went up among those against further integration, from 19% in 2008 to 39% in 2009.

"In 2008, the claims of the No campaign about the consequences of the treaty were believed by many voters, but changed considerably in the last year."
In 2008 half the electorate perceived at least 3 unfavourable consequences of the treaty, while in 2009 only one in 3 voters did so.
At the same time, many more felt that a Yes vote would simplify decision-making in the EU (74%, up from 59%) and the treaty would strengthen workers' rights (57%, up from 42%).

"In 2008, we saw strong signs of an anti-government protest vote, while such signs were weak for 2009. Among those who in 2008 were quite or very satisfied with the government, 63% voted yes, while only 33% of those who were quite or very dissatisfied did so." Interestingly they mention that had this trend continued in 2009 [given the government's lower satisfaction rating]; it is hard to see how the referendum would have been won.
In 2009, among those satisfied with the government, 85% voted Yes, as opposed to less than 70% (sic) of those who were dissatisfied.
With regard to party supporters' backing of the treaty, the breakdown was: FF 90%, FG 78%, Labour 74% and the Greens 58%.

"When voters were asked about the consequences of a Yes vote for Ireland's recovery from the economic crisis, and asked to choose between 2 options - "the referendum result will help an economic recovery in Ireland", or "the referendum result will be harmful to an economic recovery in Ireland" - 80% thought the Yes vote would help, as opposed to only 15% who thought it would hinder recovery."
"...87% of those who thought a Yes would help a recovery voted Yes as opposed to only 10% of those who thought Lisbon would hinder recovery."

Finally the authors express the opinion: "It has become clear that voters' beliefs about the consequences of the treaty were of paramount importance. In 2008 the No campaign was successful in persuading the voters that these consequences would be negative, but in 2009 voters no longer believed the consequences would be negative. This was partly because of the activities of the Yes campaign, partly because of assurances by EU partners on points of concern and - possibly most importantly - because of the perspective that a Yes vote would have positive consequences for economic recovery, and a No vote would prejudice our economic future at a time when we need all the friends we can get"




* "The poll was carried out by Red C on a random sample of 1,011 adults between October 5 and 7. The accuracy level is estimated at +/- 3%. The survey was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the European Society for Opinion and Market Research (Esomar)."


Edit: The article in which these survey results appear is now available on line here
.

Mario007

wow so basically this time around people actually understood what was in the treaty. maybe next time our leaders will learn and try to explain any further treaties to the people on the first time around

Martin 2

Mario007 wrote: »

wow so basically this time around people actually understood what was in the treaty. maybe next time our leaders will learn and try to explain any further treaties to the people on the first time around

Absolutely Mario, but I'm sure we said the same thing after Nice II. Anyways I hope we don't need an EU referendum for a long time if ever... don't want to go through that stress again.

View

Martin 2 wrote: »

Absolutely Mario, but I'm sure we said the same thing after Nice II. Anyways I hope we don't need an EU referendum for a long time if ever... don't want to go through that stress again.

Oh, I'd say we'll have another referendum in 5 years or so. I can think of a few areas that need updating already...

Martin 2

View wrote: »

Oh, I'd say we'll have another referendum in 5 years or so. I can think of a few areas that need updating already...

I have no problem with further changes to the EU treaties but hopefully most can be approved by a Dail vote rather than by referendum, unless the changes you envisage are quite significant.

View

Martin 2 wrote: »

I have no problem with further changes to the EU treaties but hopefully most can be approved by a Dail vote rather than by referendum, unless the changes you envisage are quite significant.

Well, I have been persuaded by all the No posters that a new position of President of the European Union would be a good idea. I for one would hate to disappoint them!

Secondly, the financial crisis has highlighted that the existing financial supervisory structures in the member states are not up to the job. I'd imagine there is a strong case for folding them into an EU body. And, that is not to mention the case for having a Eurozone emergency bail-out system for member staes that mis-manage their economies...

Thirdly, I'd imagine that the entire episode of Russia V's Georgia will have knock-on implications. No, I don't know what the conclusions about that will be but I don't imagine the member states will totally ignore it either.

Fourthly, I suspect the role of the EU Parliament will be further strengthened in the coming years - giving Parliament direct decision making authority in Foreign Policy (in adddition to the member states) will have interesting constitutional implications.

Lastly, of course, the entire "ratification of Lisbon" saga has clearly highlighted that the current "unanimity system" of ratifying EU Treaties is well past its "Sell-by" date.

Some, if not all of those, will probably require referenda here I'd imagine.

Martin 2

View wrote: »

Well, I have been persuaded by all the No posters that a new position of President of the European Union would be a good idea. I for one would hate to disappoint them!

Secondly, the financial crisis has highlighted that the existing financial supervisory structures in the member states are not up to the job. I'd imagine there is a strong case for folding them into an EU body. And, that is not to mention the case for having a Eurozone emergency bail-out system for member staes that mis-manage their economies...

Thirdly, I'd imagine that the entire episode of Russia V's Georgia will have knock-on implications. No, I don't know what the conclusions about that will be but I don't imagine the member states will totally ignore it either.

Fourthly, I suspect the role of the EU Parliament will be further strengthened in the coming years - giving Parliament direct decision making authority in Foreign Policy (in adddition to the member states) will have interesting constitutional implications.

Lastly, of course, the entire "ratification of Lisbon" saga has clearly highlighted that the current "unanimity system" of ratifying EU Treaties is well past its "Sell-by" date.

Some, if not all of those, will probably require referenda here I'd imagine.

Some worthwhile changes there, especially the financial controls in fact had
we been forced to heed the Commission's warnings in 2000 we might have
avoided much of our current difficulties. As for emergency Eurozone bail out, we're effectively receiving it through ECB liquidity support to the banking sector but probably should be formalized.

I can see how a lot of the changes in your post might require a constitutional
amendment. Maybe it's time to look at making some (not all) amendments by
parliamentary vote alone, other countries do. Of course we'd probably need a
referendum to make that change.

MrMicra

Why is it desirable to ratify EU treaties by parliamentary majority rather than by referendum?

PopeBuckfastXVI

MrMicra wrote: »

Why is it desirable to ratify EU treaties by parliamentary majority rather than by referendum?

http://www.coircampaign.org/index.php/facts-and-figures/factsandfigures

Martin 2

MrMicra wrote: »

Why is it desirable to ratify EU treaties by parliamentary majority rather than by referendum?

I'm not saying parliamentary votes are preferable for every amendment just some and that option should be available to the government. A new amendment process would need the approval of the people anyway. The government could then decide the method of approval for future constitutional amendments based on the significance of the changes.
My main objection to referenda on international treaties is that the treaties are invariably opposed on populist xenophobic grounds as we saw with Lisbon II (Coir, UKIP, etc).

PomBear

any got anymore statistics, it'll be very much appreciated, preferably in relation to the internet effect on peoples political decision

Martin 2

PomBear
any got anymore statistics, it'll be very much appreciated, preferably in relation to the internet effect on peoples political decision

The Irish Times published some results from a post Lisbon II survey by the European Commission, see here. However I've seen the full European Commission document.

After Lisbon I there were 2 main surveys:
1)The European Commission Eurobarometer survey: link
2)Millward Brown IMS survey for the Dept of Foreign Affairs: link[FONT=&quot]

I haven't looked through these for a while but I remember there was mention of the influence of the internet.[/FONT]

PomBear

Martin 2 wrote: »

The Irish Times published some results from a post Lisbon II survey by the European Commission, see here. However I've seen the full European Commission document.

After Lisbon I there were 2 main surveys:
1)The European Commission Eurobarometer survey: link
2)Millward Brown IMS survey for the Dept of Foreign Affairs: link[font=&quot]

I haven't looked through these for a while but I remember there was mention of the influence of the internet.[/font]

Thanks a million mate